Case Summary (G.R. No. 103982)
Key Dates
- March 26–April 7, 1990: Period of petitioner’s hospitalization
- May 11, 1990: Initial request for reimbursement to NBI Director Lim
- June 22, 1990: First indorsement by Director Lim to Secretary of Justice
- September 19, 1990: Fifth indorsement by COA Chairman questioning the applicable law
- November 21, 1990: Fourth indorsement by Undersecretary Bello returning the claim
- April 26, 1991: Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon
- May 10, 1991: Fifth indorsement transmitting claim again to Undersecretary Bello
- July 2, 1991: Sixth indorsement by Secretary Drilon to COA Chairman
- January 16, 1992: Seventh indorsement by COA Chairman denying the claim
- February 7, 1992: Ninth indorsement advising petitioner to elevate to the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
- Section 699, Revised Administrative Code (RAC) of 1917, as amended by R.A. No. 1232 (1955) – sickness‐benefit provision for government personnel.
- Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Section 27, Book VII – general repealing clause.
- PD 626 (Employees’ Compensation) and Article 173, Chapter II, Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended by PD 1921 – interplay of compensation benefits.
- 1987 Philippine Constitution – general framework for administrative agencies and statutory interpretation.
Facts and Procedural History
Petitioner incurred substantial hospital and medical expenses due to cholecystitis in early 1990 and sought reimbursement under Section 699, RAC. His claim passed through a series of favorable indorsements by NBI and the Department of Justice, culminating in Secretary Drilon’s endorsement to COA for payment. COA denied the claim on the ground that Section 699 had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987, recommending petitioner seek relief before the Employees’ Compensation Commission instead. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to challenge COA’s indorsement.
Issue
Whether the Administrative Code of 1987 implicitly repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, thereby precluding petitioner’s claim for sickness benefits under the old Code.
Statutory Repeal: Express vs. Implied
• Express Repeal: Occurs when a subsequent law specifically cites and revokes an earlier enactment.
• Implied Repeal: Arises only if a later statute (a) contains irreconcilable provisions on the same subject or (b) wholly covers and clearly intends to supplant the prior law.
Nature of the 1987 Code’s Repealing Clause
Section 27, Book VII of EO 292 provides for a general repeal of “all laws… inconsistent with this Code.” It neither names the RAC nor expressly revokes Section 699. Such a broad “inconsistent‐with” clause is not an express repeal but allows only for implied repeal upon proof of irreconcilable conflict or comprehensive substitution.
No Irreconcilable Conflict
- The Administrative Code of 1987 does not restate numerous provisions of the RAC (e.g., notaries public, leave law, Section 699).
- COA failed to demonstrate any direct conflict between Section 699 and the new Code.
- Absence of restatement, by itself, does not create irreconcilable inconsistency.
No Comprehensive Substitution
- The 1987 Code does not claim to recodify every subject of the RAC; it focuses on administrative structure, organization, and procedure.
- Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of Justice confirms the new Code was meant to supplement and modernize, not wholly replace, the old Code’s substantive provisions on benefits.
Role of Executive Opinions in Statutory Construction
- Opinions of the Secretary and Undersecretary of Justice are persuasive in interpreting in pari materia statutes.
- Administrative rulings are subject to judicial review for legal errors; deference is limited where statutory construction is concerned.
- Repeals by implication are disfavored; courts presume the legislature did not intend unintended abrogations.
Double Recovery and Employees’ Compensation
- Article 173, Chapter II of the Labor Code ex
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 103982)
Facts
- Petitioner Antonio A. Mecano, Director II of the National Bureau of Investigation, was hospitalized for cholecystitis from March 26 to April 7, 1990 and incurred medical and hospital expenses totalling ₱40,831.00.
- On May 11, 1990, he requested reimbursement under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code (as amended) by memorandum to NBI Director Alfredo S. Lim.
- Section 699 RAC authorizes payment, at the discretion of the department head, of medical attendance, necessary transportation, subsistence, and hospital fees for sickness incurred in the performance of duty.
- Director Lim’s 1st Indorsement (June 22, 1990) forwarded the claim to the Secretary of Justice with a favorable recommendation from the NBI Legal and Evidence Division chief.
- The Department of Justice Committee on Physical Examination found Mecano’s illness to be service-connected and recommended payment.
- Undersecretary Silvestre H. Bello III’s 4th Indorsement (November 21, 1990) returned the claim, citing the COA Chairman’s 5th Indorsement (September 19, 1990) that Section 699 had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987.
- Mecano re-submitted his claim with Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 (April 26, 1991) by Secretary Franklin M. Drilon, stating that the 1987 Code did not repeal Section 699 in its entirety.
- Director Lim’s 5th Indorsement (May 10, 1991) again forwarded the claim to Undersecretary Bello; Secretary Drilon’s 6th Indorsement (July 2, 1991) recommended payment to the COA Chairman.
- COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo’s 7th Indorsement (January 16, 1992) denied the claim on the sole ground that Section 699 was not restated in the 1987 Code and thus deemed repealed; he suggested filing with the Employees’ Compensation Commission.
- Undersecretary Eduardo Montenegro’s 9th Indorsement (February 7, 1992) advised Mecano to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether the Administrative Code of 1987, by omissi